Talk:Lạc Long Quân

Name

• Xích Quỷ là Xuy Vưu chứ có con mẹ gì đâu. Bọn genz biến wiki thành chỗ cho chúng nó ỉa nên chặn họng không cho người khác nói, thành thử kiến thức mới ngu dần đi, mỗi một từ mà không biết luận ra chỉ thích tẩy xóa để chứng minh mình đúng. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:4803:FC02:1280:34AD:98FC:D03A:D474 (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Why were pinyin and Cantonese given (before being removed today)? Is this term used in those languages? Badagnani (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. Closing comment at the bottom. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

• Lac Long Quan → Lạc Long Quân
• Au Co → Âu Cơ
• Kinh Duong Vuong → Kinh Dương Vương

– [restore undiscussed moves] Dragon lord Lạc Long Quân Vietnam's national ancestor, his own father Kinh Dương Vương, his wife the fairy Âu Cơ, whose egg hatched 100 children and mother of the Vietnamese people. Per WP:IRS "the best such sources" these mythical characters are given with full Vietnamese spelling in English books on mythology, ethnology and political education in Vietnam. Principle characters in the Vietnamese creation myth, Vietnamese spelling preserved in English Vietnam Online, Hanoi print version of English Viet Nam News, even Âu Cơ Vietnamese Cultural Center, San Francisco, etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. GBooks has 101 post-1990 results for "Lac Long Quan". I noticed only one English-language book that gave this name with diacritics: An Unashamed Defense of Coffee. The Vietnamese English-language press are the ones with the most experience with these marks, and they generally don't used them. See Voice of Vietnam News. Published encyclopedias and other reference works don't use them either. See Britannica or Birth of Vietnam. According the WP:EN, we should follow the style of other reference works. Vietnamese diacritics are more intense than those of European languages. National Geographic advises against their use and describes them as "distracting." Kauffner (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If a couple of measly circumflexes and a few weird fishhooks are too intense, steer clear of Baħar Iċ-Ċagħaq and Rinôçérôse. —  AjaxSmack  03:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support, none of these have established anglicized versions (such as "Hanoi", etc). It is easy to find several English-language reference works that do use the diacritics, simply by searching for "Lạc Long Quân" in books.google.com: the first page of search results shows Education as a Political Tool in Asia[1], Engaging the Spirit World: Popular Beliefs and Practices in Modern Southeast Asia, Modernity and Re-Enchantment: Religion in Post-Revolutionary Vietnam, Saigon: A History, etc. as well as An Unashamed Defense of Coffee[2] (already mentioned by Kauffner, and especially noteworthy because it is not even specifically about Vietnam). Some English-language print publications intentionally make an exception for Vietnamese, in that they suppress Vietnamese diacritics even while retaining them for other languages; however that is because input and proofreading of Vietnamese diacritics really requires some knowledge of the Vietnamese language, unlike European diacritics which can be input using a tool like Character Map in Windows and can be proofread by visual inspection, even with no language knowledge whatsoever. Print publications cannot commit to permanently retaining at least one Vietnamese-speaking staff member at all times, nor can print be easily corrected; however, an online encyclopedia that is crowdsourced with thousands of contributors faces no such limitations. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • We must take the sources as we find them, and not assume things about their technology and staffing. I didn't notice the diacritics in Education as a Political Tool. They seem to be lighter or smaller than normal. It's an interesting compromise. The coffee book puts diacritics on Au Co and Lac Long Quan, but not on other Vietnamese words. Perhaps it's just a goof. Kauffner (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

P.T. Aufrette is not assuming anything, he's stating what is common knowledge to anyone with any connection to publishing and well documented.

Secondly what you say "we" do, is the exact opposite of what "we" of 1000s of en.wp editors do. We don't "take sources as we find them" otherwise en.wp would not have the legendary founder of Czechs at Čech, legendary Irish hero Cú Chulainn, and so on, despite them not being accented in low-MOS sources. We do this for any other Latin alphabet in English, including Asian languages like Hawaiian, Maori and Chamorro, so why should we single out the Vietnamese for special treatment? Unless you can make a case for special treatment of Vietnamese as the only Latin-alphabet language where we count "majority" sources rather than follow "the best sources" "sources reliable for the statement being made" this objection discriminates against Vietnamese language compared to the way en.wp treats all other Latin-alphabet languages. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So VOV, Viet Nam News, VietnamNet and so forth strip off diacritics, not to make it easier for English-speakers to read their copy, but because their staff doesn't know Vietnamese? Or perhaps they can’t type Vietnamese on their keyboards? Either version of this theory is pretty patronizing. Regardless of the reason English-language publishers don't use Vietnamese diacritics, the fact that don't means that the version of the name without diacritics is more likely to be familiar to the English-speaking reader. We should follow the conventions of English-language reference works rather than those non-English publications. “Follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language,” as WP:DIACRITICS says. Kauffner (talk) 07:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner,

Repeat: Unless you can make a case for special treatment of Vietnamese as the only Latin-alphabet language where we count "majority" sources rather than follow "the best sources" "sources reliable for the statement being made" this objection discriminates against Vietnamese language compared to the way en.wp treats all other Latin-alphabet languages.

And re the red herring, partly because their foreigner proofreaders don't all know Vietnamese yes, but it would have more to do with html, hence the print edition of Viet Nam News having but the html not. As for the current result of snailpace editwar at WP:DIACRITICS, en.wp in reality follows the earlier versions by Prokonsul Piotrus etc, not the current edit. As indeed these Vietnam articles did, among the others where you made undiscussed moves and locked the redirects.

In ictu oculi (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, what about Saigon Times? Their print edition doesn't use diacritics, and it is more widely available than VNN's. The print edition of VNN is quite a dinosaur, if they still put it out at all. The headlines on the front page are generally about where the party leader visited yesterday and how the economy is improving, regardless of what is actually happening in the world. I don't know where you get your ideas about HTML from, but the BBC and the VOA both have Vietnamese-language sites that use diacritics. After all, it's not Vietnamese without diacritics. As long as other English-language reference works aren't using these marks, putting them in makes us look like amateurs pushing foreign language use. Kauffner (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: I checked at the main library in Saigon, and they don't carry VNN anymore either. So it looks like the only English-language newspaper that used Vietnamese diacritics has gone belly up. (No, Vietweek does not use these marks, at least not in thier non-culinary articles.) Kauffner (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Under English only google search: "Lạc Long Quân" is 62K hits.[3] and "Lac Long Quan" is 93K hits. [4]. Incorporating a google book search from 1950 to present, "Lạc Long Quân" is 55 hits[5] and "Lac Long Quan" is 156 hits [6]. Changing the date line from 1950 to 1980 only increases the disparity in favour of the anglicized name; 248 hits vs. [7] 46 hits [8]. removing wikipedia from the google books search had no read affect on search result proportionality, with "Lac Long Quan" -wikipedia receiving 235 hits[9] and "Lạc Long Quân" -wikipedia 25 hits. [10]. the search results I have at the moment don't appear to lend credence to a move on a WP:COMMONNAME basis.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Labattblueboy, thanks for comment but if that's what WP:COMMONNAME means then we need to remove é from Renée Zellweger. Please take another look at WP:AT; WP:COMMONNAME is about "Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton)", wheras WP:UE gives all examples for foreign names "Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen", i.e. all examples with accents, despite the fact that if we go counting majority English sources Søren Kierkegaard does not have ø in most English books (please conduct the same searches as above if you don't believe me). WP:COMMONNAME also applies to whether to use Danzig or Gdańsk, but not whether to use "Gdansk" which is the most common typography, but isn't even considered a possibility in the Gdańsk article. Please have a look at these examples, and then confirm whether you really want Vietnamese to be singled out for exceptional treatment different to all other languages. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think its a pretty broad statement to conclude that this request has broad spectrum implications across all names with accents or diacritics. In the example cited, there is nothing in WP:COMMONNAME that would prevent Gdansk as a title and Gdańsk in the article text. In this case, it simply appears to be that English language publishers are stripping names of diacritics. WP:UE provides the guidance on this matter, in directing that we follow English language usage.--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Labattblueboy, sure, yes but that's exactly the point, this RM doesn't have broad spectrum implications across all names with accents or diacritics, if this RM follows all names with accents or diacritics it will be restored to consistency with Gdańsk and every other Latin alphabet article. Since WP:COMMONNAME doesn't give any example or any mention of accents I can't see why it's relevant? As for English language publishers, English language publishers simply have a lower MOS than en.wp and en.wp doesn't follow them. Hence en.wp uses Gdańsk, English publishers use Gdansk. I'm slightly lost with the point. Do you mean that an accented example should be included in WP:COMMONNAME to show that WP:COMMONNAME isn't against accents? Examples with accents are already listed in the next section of WP:AT. Sorry but I don't follow the how someone can go from WP:COMMONNAME to a typography issue like accents? The WP:COMMONNAME of Hùng Hiền Vương (his royal title) is Lạc Long Quân (his common name), not the WP:COMMONNAME of Lạc Long Quân is "Lac Long Quan" mispelled, you do realised that 'â' and 'a' are different letters? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Accents/diacritics are neither favoured nor discouraged, they're just there (WP:DIACRITICS). If the most common name employs them, so we do. If not, then we don’t. I am neither in favour nor against diacritics. I am simply basing my opinion of the English search results produced, and in this case they show that the diacritics aren't used. The search results also appeared to show that the diacritics for this name become less prevalent as the publications become more modern. As shown earlier, this includes search results, books and peer review journals seem to show the same.[11] I don’t know why the majority of English publications remove the diacritics, but they do. --Labattblueboy (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support usage of Latin-based script therefore diacritic usage follows WP:IRS application of WP:COMMONNAME. Stripping diacritics does not make something English - that would be the real red herring. Agathoclea (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support per In ictu oculi. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose use of complex diacritics in article titles, when the plain English version without diacritics is obviously far more common. I do not oppose diacritics in lede or body if the common version of the word without diacritics is associated with the version that incorporates diacritics, or if the version with diacritics is Wikilinked to an article where both versions are used together. I think Wikitravel rules are sensible. LittleBen (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

LittleBenW, wikitravel.org has nothing to do with Wikipedia, apparently it was run by a guy called Evan and sold to Internet Brands, Inc. Moreover those guidelines haven't been updated since 2005 In ictu oculi (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• request relist to get more input. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Agathoclea. ༆ (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• WP:AT says quite clearly that (quote) "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by. A good Wikipedia article title has the following characteristics: Recognizability ... and Naturalness : Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with ... Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. The Common names section of WP:AT says "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural.
• However IIO seems to say the exact opposite of the Wikipedia guidelines, in essence: "we don't take any notice of reliable English-language sources and prevalence (majority sources)", "we don't take any notice of keywords (without diacritics) that readers are likely to search by". In other words, "we just add diacritics to everything" ("why should we single out the Vietnamese for special treatment? Unless you can make a case for special treatment of Vietnamese as the only Latin-alphabet language where we count majority sources"). "To hell with the majority of English-speaking readers who don't want to be forced to learn diacritics—we know what is best for them and are going to ram it down their throats". LittleBen (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Its not "To hell with the majority of English-speaking readers who don't want to be forced to learn diacritics" - those people have no interest whatsoever in learning about Vietnamese subjects. They will never be exposed to those articles. Funny enaugh a someone else was complaining about diacritics wanted to move to the simple wikipedia only to find that they are used there as well as simple does not mean wrong. And verifiable does not give us licence to use known mistakes. Which is the reason we got WP:IRS. Agathoclea (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• The "mistakes" argument is beyond ridiculous. To take your argument to its logical conclusion: you are saying that anybody who wants to learn anything about China, Japan, Korea, or other countries will learn their languages. Wikipedia can offer people the choice to learn or not by using foreign-language and basic Latin romanized forms together in the article lede and body, but there is absolutely no rational reason why foreign languages absolutely have to be used in article titles; "not to use foreign languages in English article titles is a mistake" is surely a joke. LittleBen (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nom. English typically does not "translate" names except for some notable European historical figures whose names have English equivalents. These figures are notable for (supposed) activities in what is now Vietnam and, strictly speaking, don't have "English" names. There are some sources that can't type diacritics or have style manuals that prohibit diacritics. Wikipedia does not and, for those readers alarmed by unusual typography, the diacritics can be "read through". i.e., those unfamiliar with them can ignore the circumflexes et al. Wikipedia is a reference work and not a newspaper and need not reflect archaic typographical limitations. —  AjaxSmack  03:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support; more accurate spelling. It's unfortunate that some people keep on doing undiscussed moves in what they know is a controversial area - and then edit the redirect to make their fait accompli harder to undo. That's gaming the system. bobrayner (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Threatening admins. and users who favor a neutral viewpoint based on a great majority of current-day English sources, moving European articles to diacritics without getting any consensus, and presenting that "fait accompli" as a reason for doing the same to Vietnamese is not just gaming the system, it's also screwing Wikipedia users and supporters. No major publisher would be so crazy as to use Vietnamese in the title of a book for English speakers, so why should Wikipedia be so stupid? LittleBen (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yale University Press is a major publisher. Note to closer: We have just had an RfC consistent with recent RMs and expressing majority support for treating Vietnamese as other Latin alphabet languages. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do even need closers when we have IIO to give us the results of unclosed RfCs and RMs? Kauffner (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Nowhere on Wikipedia do guidelines say that using anything that is not widely-recognized and widely-used English in article titles is "preferable". "Non-English is more accurate spelling" is nowhere in the guidelines. The guidelines say "use English": the criteria are surely "most widely-used in English sources", and "consensus" not "majority". Britannica apparently uses macrons in romanized Japanese names like Tokyo and Osaka—but no respectable publisher does that nowadays: it would probably cost Britannica too much money to bring their style into this century. Local English newspapers and websites represent current majority usage; limited-edition vanity academic publications do not. LittleBen (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Actually WP:COMMONNAMES says just that. It says that even if something is the most common name but it is an incorrect or inaccurate name that it should not be used. This is the case here, even though without the diacritics may be more common it shouldn't be used because simply stripping off the diacritics and not properly translating is an error and inaccurate. -DJSasso (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• The majority of English native speakers can't read, write or remember words with complex Vietnamese diacritics, so using them in article titles and headings is just making them very difficult or impossible for the majority of English Wikipedia users to read. Saying that "not using foreign language titles is an error and inaccurate" is saying that Chinese and Japanese titles should also be used. Major publishers of "English-language" newspapers, "English-language" magazines, and "English-language" books do not use foreign language article titles that the majority of readers can't read, write or remember. LittleBen (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support the more accurate and encyclopedic title. -DJSasso (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • As I have explained before, no published encyclopedia uses Vietnamese diacritics. It doesn't make us look "encyclopedic". It makes us look like amateurs pushing non-English usage. No information would be lost, since the diacritics would still be given in the opening. Kauffner (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• I know that I'm opinionated when it comes to diacritics in personal names, although I've shied away from Vietnamese ones and never run into the issue for mythological figures before. So perhaps the closure should be left up to someone else, but I see a discussion that's been open for over a month with pretty clear consensus. I'm ruling it moved. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.